*1 subsequent precinct tion, and not to
confrontation. enough complete here is
The record unnec- a remand to render
these matters subject general essary. theOn issues identification
late consideration in the raised not been have court, in Solo- discussion States, 133 v. mon (1969). F.2d Judge K. WILBUR Circuit
Senior result. in the concurs
MILLER George Lamb, Jr., Washington, P. C.,
D. Byron Scott, with whom Mr. N. Washington, C., brief, D. was on the appellants. Stilley, Mr. Van A. Wash- C., ington, appearance D. also entered an PORSON, Appellant, Jean-Claude Friedlander, Washington, Mr. Mark P. POJIDAEFF, Appellee. Vladimir G., D. appellee. Messrs. Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander, Blaine P. GALVAN and Jean-Claude Alvaro F. Harry Friedlander, P. and Marshall H. Porson, Appellants, Brooks, Washington, C., D. entered pearances appellee. POJIDAEFF, Appellee. Vladimir TAMM, MacKINNON, Before Nos. Judges, NICHOLS,* Judge, Circuit United States Court U. S. Court Claims. District Columbia Circuit. Argued June PER CURIAM: 13, 1970. Decided Nov. grow appeals out consolidated These Dis- complaints filed in libel against
trict Court and Galvan. Porson tried to cases were solidated against Porson verdicts returned thou- in the amount one case Gal- Porson sand dollars and in the amount van in a second case dollars, of which four thousand A third us. appealed to verdicts appealed. verdict has been litigants free three inter act lance compete with preters at conferences assignments. each other interpret as chief capacity 293(a). U.S.Code, * designation pursuant Section Sitting by Title *2 higher per ers, they not “his services” a “letter receive of solici- tation,” compensation activity but concludes that diem and this compensation “professionally is additional unethical.” On the also receive organiz hand, (Plain- recruiting interpreters and other letter (De 9) says “merely tiff’s Exhibit that he is of conferences. the conduct * * * 149-150.) writing 9, App. my of col- Exhibit fendants’ leagues, professional are or were and Both regional interpreters” professional or of of “all members n Pojidaeff my colleagues thorough experi- ganization have had and Galva pro ence in a wide members were Thus, organization. arguably fields.” there is at least fessional during question groups as factual to whether let- of both this officer an being person- ter pertinent would be understood period to this controver as time publicity. significantly, Poji- al More sy. daeff’s letter states that rates “[t]he regional developed within Friction applied and conditions are those of the organization, internecine con- International Association of Conference opposed troversy appellants to Interpreters.” statement This is alluded Ultimately appellants pellee. withdrew plaintiff’s to in which con- organ- group others and with from assertion cludes with the that “the interpreters. of association ized a new * * representations above mentioned emerged a series of the melee there Out wrong.” factually goes Exhibit 8 [are] Porson, a letter letters written point: into somewhat more detail on this participated as Galvan Porson and Society Interpreters American group, professional new directors of the point also wishes to out that state- by them. drafted also a “Statement” ments, according to rates which his upon of these docu- the contents It Department of are those of the U.S. actions were ments that the libel or those of the International As- State by Pojidaeff. Before us initiated Interpreters, sociation Conference challenge judge’s action lants misleading approxi- are in that go permitting the combined cases to mate difference in the North Ameri- jury, adequacy evidence can Continent between his own and a section of the trial court’s theirs has been the order of two to They jury. also the estab- assert one. lishment of their defense truth as a complete study matter of law. After a There considerable record, of the affirm the Dis- testimony amount of on the matter of trict Court’s verdicts. (see, 326-333), rates e. Tr. g., plaintiff’s weighed aspect It is our conclusion that ex- and it heavily is clear 9, (App. 63-72), judge hibits created the trial his deci questions denying relevant re- factual sion the motion for directed quired jury. submission Without excerpts verdict in these cases: extensive discussion we cite Now, The Court: in his require from the exhibits which we hold they letter are the same as this conclusion. as AIIC’s the same the State De- quotes provision partment Exhibit 7 In the letter of the [sic]. they say International Association of Conference 24th the truth of the but (hereinafter Interpreters’ AIIC) Code matter is his statements that his rates requires Professional Conduct which are the AIIC the State Department factually members abstain all forms of are personal publicity, unethical, and then and if [sic] Pojidaeff engaged wrong certainly pub- they factually in “a direct mail are licity campaign” professionally in which he offered unethical. complaint they in 1669-65 and then in And identi- letters sets forth libelous his rates the same instead plaintiff’s great, fied If exhibits 7 or as times as almost two libels, that action not actionable and the high, as much as AIIC appellee Poji- you must Both refer to fail. and when *3 letter, plaintiff’s it interpret- daeff’s figure $75 his rates at necessary to exhibit 9 to to refer un- him, plus $250 and $100 ers (a them. In exhibit 9 circu- fees, derstand organizing up then his rates lar), Mr. wrote that he was greater to one over two much organi- any representing commercial Department. the AIIC and acting private “entrepre- zation 599-600.) (Tr. Upon the of these basis writing on neur” his but was that the conclude alone we documents colleagues, the directing precluded from was trial court interpreters of Western the conference the verdict are, (They Hemisphere. I under- Appellants one other issue raise stand, persons the deliver simulta- who appears sufficient substance which speeches, neous translations justify that the refusal comment speak- do those not understand the jury to instruct on trial court language pick up er’s can head- Our re of fair comment. the defense phones.) He their rates were those said record convinces us entire view Association, of the International that ruling in this re that court’s well-known to members were gard correct. We have reviewed was Nations, given jury it as was State, other named or- comports that it are satisfied sub experi- ganizations, had stantially with so-called “standard” in fields. ence He approved customarily in enclosed a list of conferences which used note further in this re area. We interpreter his or- services “as gard stipulated appellants’ that counsel ganize interpretation services.” his instructions as satisfaction (of plans He told the fu- wanted be given before the retired to deliber conferences) ture the interna- because 676.) (Tr. ate. interpreters had to be tional engaged he well in advance. P.S. wanted fur- said the addressees that myself” they ther information “about NICHOLS, Judge part, (concurring in officials, named two could contact dissenting part): in Department, and State United Nations important It is to note that Civil Ac- respectively. tion No. 1671-65 distinct from the .is was President Though appeal. other cases in this American association trial, solidated with the others for of an international or- Vice-President separate $1,000 made a award of field, having ganization, in disposi- I therein. concur in the court’s headquarters in Paris. tion case. 7 is addressed to the Paris or- Nos. 1669-65 and 2554-65 are ganization. lawsuit; brought It asserts that exhibit in 9 No. was Metzger Virginia direct mail constitutes an unethical so- because defendant personal employment. there, to secure be and later served no 8 one is authorized com- Exhibit transferred here. The same employment on plaint behalf of mem- to solicit the verdict serves organization Metzger $4,- bers of whose name but awards both finds exhibits fur- sent. Both defendants Porson and Gal- ther issue with Mr. reverse that case. take van. I would construed, however, asserting sent should be statements about actually challenging the result in No. he were the same the rates libels differ- of two to one. varied on the order profes- key ent. words sionally in exhibit unethical” occur
not 8. suggest difficult to libel I it is commenting not
person in the course of written, something has he him but on derogatory purporting to derive
without A other source.
information
ex
did not have
reader of exhibit 7 who
al.,
PRO-COL CORPORATION et
*4
not know what
9 before him would
hibit
Appellants,
did, he
all
If he
exhibit 7 was
about.
mail
direct
would see
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS.
was,
publicity campaign
solely and sim
No. 23767.
ply,
really
exhibit 9.
exhib
9 shows the writer of
United States Court of
District of Columbia Circuit.
unethically
it 9 to have acted
in circulat
exhibit 9. The reader
exhibit 7
Argued
15,
Sept.
could look at exhibit 9 and form his own
Nov.
Decided
easily
de
conclusion. He
reach
As I read
fendant’s conclusion.
Sullivan
Meyer,
141 F.2d
denied,
(D.C.Cir.1944),
322 U.S.
cert.
(1944),
64 S.Ct.
a directed verdict would have been
er. besides, libel,
All there is
the denial exhibits 7 and 8 of Mr. Po- allegations
jidaeff’s 9 as coverage. rate structure allegations
It is clear that of unethi- behavior, context,
cal to the so- business, the rates.
Nothing appeared to show it was infa- charge
mous of Mr. what-
ever the traffic would I do not bear. person’s
think a denial of a state- fact merely
ment is libelous because adverse person’s veracity conclusions
might be drawn the denial was be- lieved. To a statement
wrong” does not its maker with liar, a deliberate which is of
course libelous. put I do
Thus libel to be- see
fore Nos. 1669-65
2554-65. I think the was allowed essentially
to take sides in what was quarrel
business in which the law should My respectful
not have intervened. dis-